I'm personally not too happy about video capabilities built into dSLR's.
Filming is one thing, taking stills is quite another. I opted for the latter...
If I had wanted video, I would have purchased a dedicated video camera...
My feeling is that the more technical gimmicks onboard, the greater the chances of something going wrong.
Also of concern is that there is a risk of the technical development of dSLR's being side-tracked.
I would much rather see development refined to specific areas such as AF, ISO, etc.
Perhaps I'm just being a little old fashioned but I thought I would express my personal thoughts about this subject.
Anyone think similarly?
Cheers - Herman

Amen Brother. The only benefit is the ability to use some serious lens that are already in your arsenal.
OD

"Photography is man's attempt at immortality. To save our memories and share them. The places we have been, the people we have known, the things we have done. To share with others for eternity, or until the images fade away."

Herman, you must be my twin brother, separated at birth and moved to Europe! I agree. I would rather have other feature greatly enhanced than money wasted on video for a DSLR. Like a better sensor! More speed! Greater ability to shoot in low light. Video??? Humbug.

I'm still undecided on the issue. I really don't have an interest in shooting video but there have been occasions where I wished I had it available. I guess I mostly feel that it's not needed in a DSLR. I think a camera should be designed for a specific task and then do that task flawlessly rather than try to be all things to all people and do nothing well.
An analogy would be my buddies ShopSmith tool. It's a marvelous piece of engineering but I still prefer my dedicated band saw, joiner, and table saw.

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years. - attributed to Mark Twain

I agree with you entirely at this point.
......... However, I used to feel that a phone should be a phone, a music player a music player and so on and so on. iphone changed that. I am still not sold on my iphone camera, but the music player is top notch, the net capability is great and its a pretty good phone too. I want my camera to be the best camera it can be for my bucks but who's to say what the future will bring?

One of our local news photogs shots stills with his C.... and has an IPhone that he shots video on for their website. Not broadcast quality but decent enough for the web. He has a frame that the phone fits in and can get different lenses for it. I would rather do that than use my DSLR for video.
OD

"Photography is man's attempt at immortality. To save our memories and share them. The places we have been, the people we have known, the things we have done. To share with others for eternity, or until the images fade away."

If I had wanted video, I would have purchased a dedicated video camera...

Errrr not the case anymore....if you want to shoot professional video then you want a DSLR and not a video camera.....unless you have the cash for a RED or an ARRI.

The thing you have yo ask yourself is where do we draw the line when it comes to innovation and progress?

Should the manufacturers have stuck with manual focus because the first AF cameras were pathetic and no one wanted it.
Should they have stuck with viewfinders and not built Live-View into their cameras.
We were all pretty happy using 400iso film so why bother to make a DSLR that can go higher.
In fact why bother with digital at all, again the first ones were rubbish and no one took them seriously.

If you don't want to use a feature on a camera then simply don't use it, I can't understand why people moan about a feature ON their camera. By all means bemoan the fact that one is missing that you think should be there - assuming you will actually use it and not just follow the dpreview crowd who rant about their gear instead of actually getting out and using the darn stuff.

Lots of other people want new features and will buy the camera specifically because of a them. The more the camera has the more people will buy it, the more money the manufacturer will make, the more money they will have to put into R&D and the better our gear will get.

On a side note Herman (assuming your sig is up to date) your current DSLR's don't even have video so what the problem?

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years. - attributed to Mark Twain

It doesn't cost anything for video, the most basic digital imaging devices all have it.
In the UK a D3100 + 18-55mm VR lens costs £400 which looking at the cameras it has replaced is the bargain of the century - probably why Nikon sell more of them than just about every other D camera put together. If they can put full HD on that and keep the cost down then it's not a contributing factor in the cost of the D90/D5100/D7000/D300s/D3s bodies.
Video is here to stay and its fantastic that we have the OPTION if we want it. I personally wasn't bothered when I upgraded to my D300s as I've never been interested in video - but...and it's a big but...I have used it and I'm glad the option was there. I don't own a video camera but I now have footage of my boys playing that I simply wouldn't have been able to capture had my DSLR not had a video capability.
Take a look at the new Nikon 1 System and in particular the AF system. It is entirely sensor based and Nikon have said it's faster than their D3s can manage. That is because of video and the need to have the sensor running all the time. Still think video might be holding things back? The V1 can shoot at 60, yes thats six zero, frames per second in stills mode - wonder where that technology comes from......video.

Robin, Thanks for the enlightenment. When put that way... I am sold. Although to be honest, I have never used the video feature on the D90 other than to try it to make sure it worked and to see how it worked. May have to take another look at it now.
In regards to the comment on the cell phone, I on the other hand, want everything and a shaver in it!!
14MP pics
Video
Music
Computer
Internet
GPS
Phillips Electric Shaver
I want it ALL...
The more features the better. Don't ask me why, just feel that way.

A little follow up comment on this thread. I the last two weeks, I have had to do a training video for a client. I used my D90. I am converted. There are a couple of things I didn't like about the camera - video capability. No auto focus and it didn't work with my remote release. A pin in the butt, to say the least on both counts. However, the quality was excellent, importing it to the Mac was easy, the Mac edited the video and I got the job done.
So, I am now a converted, die in the wool fan.

However, I get the feeling that nothing that we opine is going to change the manufacturer's mind about which way they are going. The only way to do that is to abstain en masse from buying a DSLR with video in it.

But hang on, there's a D4 on the horizon (somewhere) and that will likely be followed by a D800 and both are almost certain to have Video built in and have at least half as many pixels again as the cameras that they are replacing. How long will the "anti-video in DSLR" element last before breaking ranks and buying into the latest technology. What there WILL NOT be is a D4 with video and a D4 sans video available to suit both camps.

"I don't need this video thing in my camera but because I have it I thought I'd give it a try - do you know, it's not all that bad!"

For the last year we have been beta testing Version 7 of Pictures to EXE which now allows us to insert video clips into slide shows in HD quality and resolution. The stalwarts of Audio-Visual were up in arms at first but one by one they are beginning to include video and 3D animation into their "stories" because they can. So it is not just the camera manufacturers. It is also the peripheral software manufacturers who see a future for High Quality High Definition 1920x1080 video when MIXED with traditional photography to tell a story. How long will it be before Photoshop contains a Video Editor?

It doesn't cost anything for video, the most basic digital imaging devices all have it.

In the UK a D3100 + 18-55mm VR lens costs £400 which looking at the cameras it has replaced is the bargain of the century - probably why Nikon sell more of them than just about every other D camera put together. If they can put full HD on that and keep the cost down then it's not a contributing factor in the cost of the D90/D5100/D7000/D300s/D3s bodies.

Video is here to stay and its fantastic that we have the OPTION if we want it. I personally wasn't bothered when I upgraded to my D300s as I've never been interested in video - but...and it's a big but...I have used it and I'm glad the option was there. I don't own a video camera but I now have footage of my boys playing that I simply wouldn't have been able to capture had my DSLR not had a video capability.

Take a look at the new Nikon 1 System and in particular the AF system. It is entirely sensor based and Nikon have said it's faster than their D3s can manage. That is because of video and the need to have the sensor running all the time. Still think video might be holding things back? The V1 can shoot at 60, yes thats six zero, frames per second in stills mode - wonder where that technology comes from......video.

Given my earlier comments, if I had a D7000, I surely would learn to use the video capabilities. But I still didn't win the lottery.
OD

"Photography is man's attempt at immortality. To save our memories and share them. The places we have been, the people we have known, the things we have done. To share with others for eternity, or until the images fade away."

I got my D5100 mainly to shoot shallow depth of field video. Then I came to realize that having a video camera that can also shoot stills is pretty convenient. Now I'm shooting raw photos and realizing what I can do with the shots after they are already taken (noise reduction, bringing out details in the shadows, etc.). I've started using stills in my video. I've got a couple of primes and a fast zoom. Yep, I'm hooked. I don't think I will ever buy a camera again that doesn't shoot both stills and video.

Laurence, it is interesting to get a spin from someone coming to still from video. I really haven't had time to explore the video capabilities of my new camera. I should because I have missed a couple of good opportunities. It would have been nice to get the Flamenco dancers in action.
Art, Not a problem. I'll swap your D800 for my D7000
Cliff

"Photography is man's attempt at immortality. To save our memories and share them. The places we have been, the people we have known, the things we have done. To share with others for eternity, or until the images fade away."

Yea, kinda reminds me of Charlton Heston and his speech to the NRA, how did that go again?

From my cold dead hands

One thing about looking at it from a video perspective that is different is what kind of sensor size is ideal. Most photographers would rather have a full frame sensor than an APS, but actually from a moving picture point of view, even an APS sensor is a little big. The problem is that if you have too shallow a depth of field, it is too hard to pull focus. You want a shallow depth of field: shallower than the 1/3" to 1/2" sensor of a typical HD video camera, but not something where the depth of field is so shallow that even a slight turn of the head loses focus like can happen with a full frame model. It's not a still. You need a little more wiggle space. With that in mind, the D800 is the current best Nikon for video (the D4 is too soft in full frame and APS crop modes but the D800 is not). Whatever takes the place of the D7000 (a D7100 I expect) and d5100 (D5200?) will probably be the sweet spot for video. I am imagining that the D7100 will be somewhat weather and mild abuse proof, but that the D5200 will have an articulating screen. I would like a little more manual control than I have with my D5100.

Thanks for the information, Lawrence, greatly appreciated. I have not tried the video feature yet on the D800, but I am eager to have a look at the capabilities. I am not a big video guy, unfortunately, but I am still interested in giving it a go.
This is all good information for me to remember when I give it a shot.

"Photography is man's attempt at immortality. To save our memories and share them. The places we have been, the people we have known, the things we have done. To share with others for eternity, or until the images fade away."

One thing about looking at it from a video perspective that is different is what kind of sensor size is ideal. Most photographers would rather have a full frame sensor than an APS, but actually from a moving picture point of view, even an APS sensor is a little big. The problem is that if you have too shallow a depth of field, it is too hard to pull focus. You want a shallow depth of field: shallower than the 1/3" to 1/2" sensor of a typical HD video camera, but not something where the depth of field is so shallow that even a slight turn of the head loses focus like can happen with a full frame model. It's not a still. You need a little more wiggle space. With that in mind, the D800 is the current best Nikon for video (the D4 is too soft in full frame and APS crop modes but the D800 is not). Whatever takes the place of the D7000 (a D7100 I expect) and d5100 (D5200?) will probably be the sweet spot for video. I am imagining that the D7100 will be somewhat weather and mild abuse proof, but that the D5200 will have an articulating screen. I would like a little more manual control than I have with my D5100.

Laurence,
Could you please expand your explanation for the preference of DX over FX and how that difference generates larger/better depth of field? My understanding of depth of field is from the photography side of things - perhaps there is something from the cinematography side that I am missing.

Thanks,
Peter

P.S. I am waiting for the D7100 as my D70s and D200 are no longer "up to snuff" sensor-wise.

Laurence, I state this under correction but I thought that I read somewhere that the new FF dSLR range has besides a crop factor of 1.5 (DX) also a 2.7 setting.
Perhaps one of the current D4 / D800 owners can confirm this.

Laurence, I state this under correction but I thought that I read somewhere that the new FF dSLR range has besides a crop factor of 1.5 (DX) also a 2.7 setting.
Perhaps one of the current D4 / D800 owners can confirm this.

The D4 shoots full frame, 1.5 crop and 2.7 crop. Unfortunately the video is only sharp with the 2.7 crop. The D800 shoots full frame and 1.5 crop and looks good either way, though the 1.5 crop is what you would probably use most for video.

Laurence,
Could you please expand your explanation for the preference of DX over FX and how that difference generates larger/better depth of field? My understanding of depth of field is from the photography side of things - perhaps there is something from the cinematography side that I am missing.

Thanks,
Peter

P.S. I am waiting for the D7100 as my D70s and D200 are no longer "up to snuff" sensor-wise.

Depth of field is the same for both video and photography. The problem with super shallow depth of field is that with a moving picture you typically want a little deeper depth of field because tho motion will take place over a certain depth. In a still you might want a person's eyes in focus and the back of their head and hands out of focus but in video that is just too much. If you look at the sensor size of a 35mm film camera, or the RED digital movie camera that is used in most Hollywood productions these days, you will see a sensor size that is about the same as an APS sensor. It is not smaller than full frame because they are cheap. It is this size that is the optimal size for moving pictures.